Sola Scriptura

By James M. Rochford

For more resources on this subject, see our earlier article “Catholicism.”

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura has taken heavy fire in recent years. In fact, some Protestant thinkers have converted to Catholicism because of it. Scott Hahn (a former Presbyterian minister) gives this as his testimony in turning to Catholicism.[1] Likewise, Tim Staples (a former Baptist turned Catholic apologist) gives a similar story.

Sola Scriptura Defined

Sola Scriptura comes from Latin which means “Scripture alone.” We can define this doctrine in this way:[2]

(1) Scripture is the sole, infallible rule of faith.

(2) No other revelation is needed for the Church.

(3) There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture.

(4) Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation.

(5) All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura is often misunderstood or mischaracterized—even when clear definitions like these are given. When we define this doctrine, it is often helpful to explain what we do not mean. For instance:

(1) We do NOT mean that we start from scratch every time we read the Bible. Of course, we should also read commentaries, quote scholars, etc. In fact, Paul writes that God gave “pastors and teachers” to the church for this reason (Eph. 4:11). However, as Geisler and MacKenzie write, “These authorities may be used only to help us discover the meaning of the text of Scripture, not determine its meaning.”[3]

(2) We do NOT mean Scripture is an exhaustive account of spiritual or other knowledge (Jn. 20:30; 21:25). Catholic apologist Karl Keating mischaracterizes Sola Scriptura when he writes, “The Reformers said the Bible is the sole source of religious truth, and its understanding must be found by looking only at the words of the text. No outside authority may impose an interpretation, and no outside authority, such as the Church, has been established by Christ as an arbiter… The whole of Christian truth is found within its pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply wrong or hinders rather than helps one toward salvation.”[4] However, this is a gross misrepresentation. We believe that Scripture can be an infallible rule that is sufficient for faith and practice without being an exhaustive rule.

(3) We do NOT mean the Church has no role in interpreting the Bible. 1 Timothy 3:15 states that the church is “the pillar and support of the truth.” However, notice the order here: the Church supports the Bible—not the other way around. We are below the Bible—not above it.

(4) We do NOT mean that we should reject all traditions. Some traditions are helpful to us as believers, and we see no reason to abandon these simply because they are extra-biblical. However, we contend that all human tradition should be subservient to Scripture—not equal to or above it. We shouldn’t reject tradition, but we also shouldn’t be subject to it, either.

(5) We do NOT mean that the apostles never spoke the word of God to people (Acts 2:42; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). When the apostles were alive, they could speak on faith and morals in person. However, since we do not have this luxury today, we must rely on their writings. Jude writes of “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3). Since the faith was already passed down to us in the first-century, we need an accurate understanding of that divine truth. This has been preserved in Scripture alone—not in oral tradition.

Now that we have properly defined Sola Scriptura, let’s consider a defense for this doctrine.

Sola Scriptura Defended

Numerous passages infer the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. While the Bible never uses the term “Scripture alone,” this teaching can be inferred from Scripture. Consider a number of reasons for this view:

First, the Bible teaches not to add or take away from Scripture. Paul writes that we should not “exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). John writes, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19). Likewise, Moses writes, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it” (Deut. 4:2; cf. 12:32). If another authority could either add or take away from Scripture, then this would invalidate these passages of Scripture.

Second, Scripture is the litmus test for discerning truth. Every time Jesus needs to answer a doctrinal question, he cites Scripture—not tradition. The phrase “It is written…” occurs some 90 times in the NT. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees saying, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures” (Mt. 22:29). He also rebuked the Jewish leaders for what was “said” (Mt. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) versus what was “written” (Mt. 4:4, 7, 10). Moreover, we have nothing in the Bible to suggest that we need something in addition to Scripture.

Third, the Bible does not allow for tradition to be equal or superior to Scripture. Jesus said, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? … by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Mt. 15:3, 6). Here Jesus judges their accepted human tradition by the superior authority of Scripture. Likewise, Paul writes, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men” (Col. 2:8). As we noted above, this does not mean that all tradition is ungodly, anymore than all philosophy is ungodly. However, this does teach that human tradition is not equal or more authoritative than Scripture. If tradition ever disagrees with Scripture, then this tradition is always wrong. Catholic apologist Jim Blackburn writes, “Jesus rightfully condemned [false tradition], but his condemnation was not meant to be applied to every tradition.”[5] However, we feel that Blackburn has missed the point here. The Pharisees were placing tradition above the Bible, and Jesus was using the Bible as a higher standard for correcting their false view.

Fourth, Luke calls the Bereans “noble-minded” for “examining the Scriptures daily” to see if the gospel was true (Acts 17:11). That is, the Bereans compared the message of the apostles with the Bible itself. If the apostles were the supreme authority, then the Bereans would have been considered unbelieving for trying to interpret the Bible by themselves—apart from the interpretation and instruction of the apostles. But instead, they were encouraged for doing this.

Fifth, Timothy was able to come to faith through the OT Scriptures as a child (2 Tim. 3:14-15). If a little child could come to faith through the OT Scriptures, how much more could a fully grown adult come to faith with the completed canon?

Sixth, Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Paul writes: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Catholic apologist Tim Staples objects that 2 Timothy 3 “says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.”[6] Of course, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn’t state that it is the only rule of faith. But it does say that it is a sufficient rule. Paul writes that Scripture makes us “equipped for every good work” (v.17). This is why we would define Scripture as sufficient for faith and morals. If Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals, we shouldn’t look for any other standard.

Note also that this passage comes in the context of battling false teaching. Paul writes, “But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). What is our guard against false teaching? Paul tells us that Scripture is the final authority that equips us for “every good work” (v.17).

Seventh, tradition is not a reliable way to transmit truth. Catholic apologists often appeal to the Church Fathers to defend doctrines, but we see no reason to believe in the early Church Fathers. In fact, false traditions were even appearing in the first century. Paul writes, “You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me” (2 Tim. 1:15). No doubt, some of these men were Paul’s personal disciples in Ephesus, whom he predicted would lose their faith (Acts 20:29-30). John had to correct false teaching in his gospel (Jn. 21:22-23), and Paul had to correct false teaching, too (2 Thess. 2:2). In fact, from one end of the NT to the other, we see contrary false teaching. If they had false traditions in the first century already, wouldn’t we expect more false traditions today? Even though the Church Fathers were closer to the apostolic age, this doesn’t make them more orthodox.

Eighth, Sola Scriptura is not an invention of the Reformation. While we do not ultimately hang our argument on history, it is verifiable that this view has been present throughout the history of the Christian Church. A few quotations will suffice to demonstrate this historical point:

Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)

Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3)

Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3)

Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3)

Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)

Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)

Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16)

John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians)

Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician)

For these reasons, we believe that Sola Scriptura is the most consistent biblical view. However, in rebuttal to these arguments for Sola Scriptura, Catholic apologists typically raise a number of objections against this doctrine:

OBJECTION #1: The Bible never explicitly teaches the subject of Sola Scriptura.

Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft writes, “If we believe only what the Scripture teaches, we will not believe sola Scriptura, for Scripture does not teach sola Scriptura.[7]

As we have seen above, the Bible certainly does teach Sola Scriptura. While the Bible doesn’t use this term explicitly (i.e. it never says “Scripture alone”), we can see that it explains this doctrine in various ways. Similarly, the Bible never uses the term “Trinity,” and yet, this is clearly a biblical teaching. We might point out that the Bible never uses the terms “purgatory,” “immaculate conception,” or “the bodily assumption of Mary.” And yet, Catholic apologists are quick to support such doctrines, and will be quick to argue their case in a similar way. For instance, regarding the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, Kreeft uses a similar argument.[8] Of course, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is much more supportable than any of these doctrines, as we have argued elsewhere (see “Purgatory,” “Immaculate Conception,” or “The Bodily Assumption of Mary”).

OBJECTION #2: We can’t have an authoritative Bible without an authoritative Church.

Catholic apologists argue that the canon of Scripture isn’t in the Bible, so we need to appeal to tradition to verify this. Dave Armstrong demonstrates the different views of the canon held over the first several centuries of the Church.[9] Catholic apologists Kreeft and Tacelli write,

If the Church is not authoritative, how can we know the Bible is? …A principle of logic and common sense is that you cannot have more in the effect than in the cause. You can’t give what you don’t have. So if the Church is not infallible, how can the Bible she wrote be infallible? Stop and think about that![10]

Protestants and Catholics alike know which books are in the Bible only because the Catholic Church decreed it: the Church defined the canon. And an infallible effect can come only from an infallible cause. If the Church is fallible, we cannot be sure that John’s Gospel is true and Thomas’s is not.[11]

Catholic apologist Tim Staples writes,

Show me where the canon of Scripture is in the Bible! …If we did not have Scripture, we would still have the Church. But without the Church, there would be no New Testament Scripture. It was members of this kingdom, the Church, who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and eventually canonized it. Scripture alone could not do any of this.[12]

However, in response, we might point out that this objection confuses epistemology with ontology. How we come to know Scripture (i.e. epistemology) is different than what Scripture is (i.e. ontology). Our knowledge of what Scripture is could be false—even if Scripture is actually something different. We deny that the Church created inspired Scripture; instead, they discovered what was inspired Scripture. If we really believe that the Church created Scripture, then the Church wouldn’t have had the Bible for the first several centuries after Christ—until a Church Council declared it as such. If we’re looking for an authoritative decision of a church council to establish the canon, then this didn’t occur in the fourth century, but in the sixteenth. Michael Kruger writes,

If one is looking for a time when the boundaries of the canon are absolutely fixed with no exceptions, then it will not be found in the fourth century—nor even in the modern day, for that matter. If the ‘closing’ of the canon refers to a formal, official act of the New Testament church, then we are hard-pressed to find such an act before the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century.[13]

It was not until the Council of Trent in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church ever made a formal and official declaration on the canon of the Bible, particularly the Apocrypha… Are we to believe that the church had no canon for over fifteen hundred years, until the Council of Trent?[14]

Are we really to believe that believers throughout the centuries were without a Bible? By contrast, already in the first-century, Paul referred to Luke 10:7 as “Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18), and Jude writes of remembering “the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 17). These “words,” no doubt, refer to the gospel accounts (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Likewise, Peter referred to Paul’s letters as “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16). In fact, he says that false teachers will be judged based on how they distort Paul’s words. Moreover, Jude quotes 2 Peter 3:3 as Scripture. Thus, we define the canon in this way:


Defining the Canon[15]

Catholic View

Evangelical View

The Church Is Determiner of Canon

The Church Is Discoverer of Canon

The Church Is Mother of Canon

The Church Is Child of Canon

The Church Is Magistrate of Canon

The Church Is Minister of Canon

The Church Is Regulator of Canon

The Church Is Recognizer of Canon

The Church Is Judge of Canon

The Church Is Jury of Canon

The Church Is Master of Canon

The Church Is Servant of Canon


James White often asks his Catholic interlocutors: How would a Jewish person (before the time of the apostolic church) know which books were inspired? Christ holds people responsible for their knowledge of the OT Scriptures (Mt. 22:31), and Paul claimed that the Jews had the Scriptures before the time of Christ (Rom. 3:1-2). But if this is the case, then this would mean that Scripture was solidified before the Catholic Church declared it to be so. This places the Roman Catholic view into a dilemma:

Either, the Bible was determined by the Jewish leadership: If this was the case, then his would negate the Catholic canon, because the Jews didn’t include the Apocrypha. Also, Jesus denied the views of the Jewish leadership—for instance he denied the use of corban (Mt. 15).

Or, the Bible is inspired regardless of recognition: If this is the case, then the Evangelical view of the canon is correct.

Michael Kruger writes, “The Catholic objection about the need for a ‘table of contents,’ therefore, misses the point entirely. Even if there were another document with such a table, this document would still need to be authenticated as part of the canon. After all, what if there were multiple table-of-contents-type books floating around the early church?” if we’re looking for an authoritative decision of a church council to establish the canon, then this didn’t occur in the fourth century, but in the sixteenth.”[16] Instead we agree with the psalmist who writes, “Forever, O Lord, your word is settled in heaven” (Ps. 119:89). We believe that God’s word is inspired, whether or not a church council affirmed it to be so. For more on the canon, see “The New Testament Canon” and “The Old Testament Canon.”

OBJECTION #3: The early church functioned without the New Testament in writing.

Catholic apologists Kreeft and Tacelli write,

The Church also tells us how to be saved, and the Church preached the Gospel for decades before there was a New Testament; but the Protestant cannot use that answer if he believes that the Church, unlike the Bible, is fallible.[17]

Regarding 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Catholic apologist Tim Staples writes,

This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.[18]

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong writes,

The first Christians preached; they didn’t hand out copies of the New Testament (most of which was not yet written, much less established in its final form). Catholicism claims that its Tradition is neither more nor less than the preserved teaching of Christ as revealed to, and proclaimed by, the Apostles. Development occurs, but only in increased understanding, not in the essence of this apostolic Tradition. Catholicism claims to be the guardian or custodian of the original deposit of Faith which was ‘once for all delivered to the saints.’[19]

The written word and mass literacy have been widespread only since the invention of the movable-type printing press, around 1440. Thus, it could not have been the primary carrier of the gospel for at least four centuries. Christians before the time of the Protestant Reformation learned mostly from homilies, sacraments, the Liturgy and its year-long calendar, Christian holidays, devotional practices, family instruction, church architecture, and other sacred art that reflected biblical themes. For all these Christian believers, sola Scriptura would have appeared as an absurd abstraction and practical impossibility.[20]

A number of counterarguments can be made to this perspective:

First, it is false that the first-century church operated without a NT. As we have already noted, the NT letters were circulated in the first century church (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7). Paul writes, “When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea” (Col. 4:16).

Second, while the early church didn’t have a completed New Testament, as we do today, they had the apostles in person. This is different than our situation today, because the apostles have all been dead for 1,900 years. As we have already argued, false traditions were already present in the early church (2 Tim. 1:15; Acts 20:29-30; Jn. 21:22-23; 2 Thess. 2:2). Therefore, even early traditions can be false traditions, and these cannot be trusted. Therefore, tradition cannot be trusted as authoritative.

OBJECTION #4: Sola Scriptura has led to thousands of contradictory interpretations of Scripture.

Catholic apologist Karl Keating writes, “If individual guidance by the Holy Spirit were a reality, each Christian would understand the same thing from any particular verse since God cannot teach error. Yet Christians have understood contradictory things from Scripture—even Christians whose ‘born-again’ experiences cannot be doubted. Indeed, fundamentalists often differ among themselves on what the Bible means. They may agree on most major points, but the frequency and vehemence of their squabbles on lesser matters, which should be just as clear if the Holy Spirit is enlightening them, prove the sacred text cannot explain itself.”[21]

However, this objection confuses misusing Scripture with the insufficiency of Scripture. If we have multiple different interpretations, is the problem with the Bible?Of course not, the problem is with us. However, adding a tradition to this problem doesn’t help the problem of our personal fallibility. People are fallible. A sacred interpretation doesn’t fix the problem of fallible people.

We might point out that this argument can go against the Catholic view, as well. For instance, we could misuse the Catholic interpretation of Scripture, too. Does this make Catholic tradition insufficient? Of course not.

OBJECTION #5: Sola Scriptura has led to 23,000 denominations.

Roman Catholicism argues that there should only be one church—not many. Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft writes, “Denominationalism is an intolerable scandal by scriptural standards—see John 17:20-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:10-17.”[22] If we are really “one body and one Spirit… one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4-5), then why has Sola Scriptura led to 23,000 different Christian denominations?

In response to this objection, a number of responses can be made:

First, we see schism between believers in the first-century church. Excluding the problems with false teaching (Gal. 2:11-14), Paul and Peter were in schism. Therefore, realistically, we are always going to have division in the church. The question is really how we respond to this. We do not believe that an overarching church government will help the problem of church unity. These passages cited above teach unity, but they don’t teach an extra-local church government. In each of these passages, God is the leader of the church—not a person.

Second, we believe that the unity taught in the NT is RELATIONAL—not ORGANIZATIONAL. The Bible teaches organic unity—not organizational unity. It should be visible through love—not church government (Jn. 13-34-35). The NT spends countless passages referring to preserving the unity between believers (e.g. bitterness, jealousy, forgiveness, etc.). However, we would be misguided to believe that this is referring to organizational unity.

Third, by rejecting denominations, we are actually breaking down the unity of the church. The basis for unity is doctrine and spiritual baptism—not governmental or organizational. Our view is that the Church consists of all people who are in Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). The Roman Catholic Church declares that it is the only church, and every denomination is filled with “separated brethren.” Therefore, by rejecting denominations, we are actually doing more to ruin the unity between believers.

OBJECTION #6: The NT authors weren’t aware that they were even writing Scripture.

Catholic apologist Karl Keating writes, “No New Testament writer seemed to be aware that he was writing under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, with the exception of the author of Revelation.”[23]

However, we are surprised that Keating would argue this. Consider these passages, which speak to the authority of Scripture. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as “Scripture.” Paul writes, “If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command” (1 Cor. 14:37). Elsewhere, he writes, “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). Moreover, Peter refers to Paul’s letters as “Scripture” as well (2 Pet. 3:15-16).


While Roman Catholicism teaches a dual authority for nature—both Scripture and Tradition, we feel that in practice they teach Sola Ecclesia (“The Church Alone”). Catholic apologist Karl Keating writes,

That Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority (that is, one set up by God to assure us of the truth of matters of faith) that the Bible is inspired do we begin to use it as an inspired book… The Catholic believes in inspiration because the Church tells him so—that is putting it bluntly—and that same Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text.[24]

Roman Catholicism teaches:[25]

The Church defines the canon of Scripture.

The Church interprets what Scripture means.

The Church defines authoritative, apostolic tradition.

The Church interprets authoritative, apostolic tradition.

To be clear, Roman Catholics would deny this characterization of Sola Ecclesia, claiming that they believe in a dual authority—not a single one. However, we feel that this expression accurately captures the Roman Catholic measure of authority. In practice, you can see that a dual authority really turns into a single authority: the Church.


[1] Hahn, Scott, and Kimberly Hahn. Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993. 51-52.

[2] White, James R. The Roman Catholic Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1996. 62.

[3] Geisler, Norman L., and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995. 191.

[4] Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988. 121, 134.

[5] Blackburn, Jim. “Not By Scripture Alone.” This Rock. Volume 18. Number 4. 2007.

[6] Staples, Tim. “According to Scripture.” This Rock. Volume 18. Number 1. 2007.

[7] Kreeft, Peter. Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988. 274-275. Cited Geisler, Norman L., and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995. 183.

[8] Kreeft and Tacelli write, “Of course, the word ‘purgatory’ isn’t in the Bible. Neither is the word ‘Trinity’. But Protestants believe in the Trinity… If the Church has the authority to interpret the references to the Trinity in the Bible, why not also the references to purgatory.” Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2009. 451.

[9] Armstrong, Dave. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute, 2003. 20-23.

[10] Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2009. 444.

[11] Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2009. 444.

[12] Staples, Tim. “According to Scripture.” This Rock. Volume 18. Number 1. 2007.

[13] In his footnote, he writes, “Gamble argues that church councils like Laodicea (360) were local, not ecumenical, and therefore had no binding authority. McDonald agrees: “There was never a time when the church as a whole concluded that these writings and no others could help the church carry out its mission in the world’ (‘The Integrity of the Biblical Canon,’ 131-132. Kruger, Michael. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton, IL. Crossway. 2012. 37.

[14] Kruger, Michael. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton, IL. Crossway. 2012. 37.

[15] Geisler, Norman & Nix, William. A General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded. Chicago, IL. Moody Press. 1986. 222.

[16] Kruger, Michael. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton, IL. Crossway. 2012. 43.

[17] Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2009. 444.

[18] Staples, Tim. “According to Scripture.” This Rock. Volume 18. Number 1. 2007.

[19] Armstrong, Dave. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute, 2003. 5.

[20] Armstrong, Dave. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute, 2003. 5.

[21] Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988. 141.

[22] Kreeft, Peter. Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988. 275. Cited in Geisler, Norman L., and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995. 183.

[23] Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988. 123.

[24] Keating goes on to say that “this is not a circular argument.” (p.127) He makes the case that we can treat the Bible as a historical text, which supports the fact that “an infallible Church was founded.” (p.126) Moreover, he writes, “How do we know that what had been handed down by the Catholic Church is correct doctrine and practice? We know it is correct because Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.” (p.139). Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988. 125.

[25] Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. “Dei Verbum.” Pope Paul VI. November 18, 1965. Chapter II: Handing On Divine Revelation. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Section 83, 86, 100.